Today we continue our discussion of the obligation of kisui ha-dam, covering the blood of a slaughtered wild animal or bird. A mishnah presents three additional rules:
If one slaughtered an undomesticated animal or bird and did not cover the blood, and another person saw the uncovered blood, the second person is obligated to cover the blood.
If one covered the blood and it was then uncovered, he is exempt from covering it again.
If the wind blew earth on the blood and covered it, he is obligated to cover the blood.
Two of the rules extend the obligation of kisui ha-dam, while the third limits it. The first rule extends the obligation to bystanders if the slaughterer does not fulfill their obligation and cover the blood themselves. The third states that if the blood is covered naturally (e.g., by wind), this does not relieve the slaughterer from their obligation to cover the blood. This comes to be understood as the idea that should the naturally covered blood later become uncovered, the slaughterer must re-cover it.
The second rule, however, limits the obligation of kisui ha-dam. If the slaughterer actively fulfills their obligation and covers the blood, then even if it is uncovered later, they need not re-cover it.
This limiting rule raises a question for Rav Aha, son of Rava, which he brings to Rav Ashi:
What is different about this case from the mitzvah of returning a lost item, where the Master said: “You shall return (hashev t’shiveim) them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), even 100 times?
The Torah obligates us to return lost items to their rightful owners. Here, the grammatical doubling of the verb in Deuteronomy 22:1 is interpreted to mean that once is not enough. We must keep trying to return the object until we are successful. Rav Aha wonders why the obligation to cover the blood is not treated the same way. If the blood is supposed to be covered, shouldn’t we have to go back to re-cover it, even 100 times, if necessary?
Rav Ashi said to Rav Aha: There, a restriction is not written. Here, a restriction is written, as it states: “And he shall cover it” (Leviticus 17:13).
Rav Ashi gives a technical answer. The verse about kisui ha-dam literally reads, “cover it with earth.” Grammatically, it could have just said “cover with earth,” omitting the word “it.” The extra word (which, in Hebrew, is really an extra letter attached to the verb as a suffix) is otherwise extraneous and therefore adds meaning — it serves to limit the obligation to one covering. That makes this case different from the obligation to return a lost object, which one must do even 100 times.
Construed more broadly, Rav Aha’s question is an interesting one: Shouldn’t all religious obligations require the same diligence? While the Talmud here gives a technical answer that applies only to these two obligations, one wonders if there are other principles at play in the background.
The obligation to cover the blood is a mitzvah in the category of ben adam la’makom, obligations that we have because God asks us to do them. God asks that we cover the blood and we fulfill God’s will by doing so. This action sensitizes us to the fact that we are taking the life of one of God’s creatures for our own sustenance and we should not do so wantonly. The ritual act is about the impact it has on us, so doing it once serves its intended purpose.
The obligation to return a lost object is in the category of ben adam l’chaveiro, obligations that we have to other people. When we find an object that belongs to someone else, we are supposed to give it back. The obligation not only restores the property to its rightful owner, it also sets a norm for society: We look out for one another. Society as a whole benefits from this, but only if finders put in real effort to return lost objects — if we are dedicated to the right outcome.
Rav Ashi’s response to today’s question was technical: The particular language used by the Torah determines how the rule is to be applied. This makes good rabbinic sense. But he may well have been motivated by larger principles. Unfortunately, if he was, the Talmud doesn’t tell us.
Read all of Chullin 87 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 26, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
